Evidence of meeting #117 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-78.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
The Crown would come first as it is considered a debt to all Canadians, but then after that it would be the collection of debt in child support payments.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the minister for being here.
First, it's encouraging that the best interests of the child is a centrepiece of Bill C-78. The best interests of the child is well established in Canadian family law. Under Bill C-78 proposed section 16 provides that only the best interests of the child shall be considered in respect of orders applicable to children in family situations.
While that's encouraging, I want to follow up with the line of questioning from Mr. Clement. It relates to how we square Bill C-78 on the one hand, which puts the interests of the child first, with Bill C-75 that hybridizes a number of serious indictable offences, including offences that relate to crimes against children.
Mr. Clement referenced kidnapping a minor under the age of 16 as well as the offence of kidnapping a minor under the age of 14. I want to raise the issue of the hybridization of individuals who breach long-term supervision orders. These are individuals who have received sentences of more than two years. They're deemed to have a substantial risk of reoffending. The offences for which they were convicted involved a range of sexual offences, often against children. They're considered to be a serious risk of reoffending, so serious that they can be subject to up to 10 years, subject to an order that imposes a whole series of very strict conditions. We're really talking, Minister, about the worst of the worst when it comes to offenders who are at risk of offending again, often against children.
How does that square with putting the interests of the children first by hybridizing the offences related to those breaches, which are often the first sign that these bad actors are going back into their history of violence and escalation toward that? It's a serious public safety concern.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I'm going to note that question for the record. I'm not taking from your time. I'm stopping the clock for a second. I waited to the end to see if it related to Bill C-78. It seems to relate to how a principle in Bill C-78 squares with Bill C-75, which is not what the minister is here to testify about today.
I'm going to ask the minister if she wishes to respond to that question or if she prefers not to. It's up to her.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I'm happy to respond to that question.
As the member noted, the best interests of the child is the basic premise of Bill C-78. I'm really pleased to hear, right around this table, that everyone embraces the best interests of the child. I hope that the study from this honourable committee will proceed expeditiously to ensure that we update our divorce laws.
In terms of the member's comments around Bill C-75 and the hybridization of offences, I will go back to my previous answer to our honourable colleague. The answer is the same. Bill C-75 is a very bold piece of significant legislation that seeks to address delays in the criminal justice system. This is a piece of legislation developed very closely with my counterparts in the provinces and territories. The comprehensive nature of the legislation will reduce the delays in the criminal justice system.
One of the pillars of the reform in that bill is around the hybridization of offences. I'll say again that hybridizing offences in no way changes the fundamental principles of sentencing. Serious crimes will continue to be prosecuted in a serious manner. Through the hybridization of offences, prosecutors will be given the tools, or the ability to use their discretion, to proceed in the manner that they deem appropriate given the circumstances of a particular case. In no way are we reducing or diminishing the serious nature of offences. Once a conviction is put in place, a court will determine the sentences based on the proportion of the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender. It does not change the sentencing principles.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Minister, I understand that you're going to say that the sentencing principles....
It's my time, Mr. Chair.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We're going to Mr. Fraser because your time expired. I'm sorry.
Mr. Fraser.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, as always, for being here with us and answering our questions on the relevant bill to our study.
I'm glad to hear that the Conservatives don't seem to have any substantive questions to ask on Bill C-78. I'm assuming, then, that they'll be supporting the bill.
Getting to the substance of this bill, I would like to acknowledge and thank you for highlighting in your remarks the fact that the terminology often used in family court cases relating to custody and access is problematic. It does oftentimes pit the parties against one another in a win and loss sort of atmosphere. That is not in the best interests of the child.
I applaud you, Minister, for highlighting that in your remarks and in the bill. It ensures that parenting orders reflect it and the terminology is updated to ensure that the true, best interests of the child are at stake, and also that parents see that what's important in these tough decisions is what is best for the child.
In one of the items in the non-exhaustive list that can inform a court on what the best interests of the child are, you mentioned heritage and cultural considerations, including children of indigenous backgrounds. Can you expand a bit about why that would be important in ensuring those considerations are taken into account by a court to determine the best arrangement for a child?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Certainly, and thank you for the comments around the change in terminology.
The change in terminology from stakeholders, from individuals whom we've talked to, presents a significant change in terms of how we proceed. Many provinces have been out in front of us and other jurisdictions in terms of the change in terminology, again, as you said, moving from a win or lose situation to one that focuses on the responsibility of parents and parenting orders, decision-making and parenting time. It actually moves beyond the premise that children are possessions and that children should be at the centre in terms of separation and divorce, and the considerations around that.
This is why we thought—as you talked about—to put in place criteria or factors around what is in the best interests of the child or what should be considered. I was pleased to be able to put in the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing, including indigenous upbringing and heritage, as one of the factors to be considered in terms of the best interests of the child.
As we said, children are different. Children have different identities and identify with particular groups, parents and religions. We want to ensure in the breakup of a marriage or a divorce that this identity of what the child feels and where he or she is tied to is taken into account. It's one of the factors to be considered, but it's an incredibly important factor. I suspect many individuals around this table, including me, who identifies very closely with an indigenous heritage, consider that it's incredibly important to maintain the child's well-being.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you.
I'd like to follow up on that as well with the fact that the relationship with other people in the child's life can be taken into account in determining what is in the best interests of the child, such as a grandparent or another person. Could you touch on what this bill does for people other than the parents who are close to the child, who have a relationship with the child? How is that taken into account in determining an arrangement that works best for the child?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Absolutely.
In our legislation we have put in place a provision that provides for contact orders for a grandparent or somebody who is close to the child, who contributes to the well-being of that child. An individual on leave of the court can apply for a contact order. We hope in separation and divorce that parents will not have such an acrimonious relationship wherein they can't determine the individuals who are important to that child and provide the ability of those people to have access to the children, but in cases where there is a significant relationship between a child and a grandparent, or a child and an uncle, or a child and a long-time family friend, there is a provision to enable a contact order.
4:20 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
Thank you.
Just on Bill C-78, obviously you've made reference, Minister, to changing the descriptors from custody to decision-making responsibility, as an example. I would hope that makes a difference, but being realistic, parents will continue to battle over custody and control of their children, sometimes tooth and nail. That's the unfortunate reality of the situation, human nature being what it is.
I know the intentions here are to lower the temperature and to focus the bill, but is there any real change we're expecting in terms of how parents behave in this system when it come to their kids?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I appreciate the question.
We do not know, nor can we know, the situation of an individual family in an acrimonious reality, where there's a battle over the child. What we have sought to do in Bill C-78 is to legislate what courts have told us around the best interests of the child. We've sought to, again, change the terminology to move beyond a win or lose situation.
To your point, in discussions I've had, individuals who have been involved in family law and are family law advocates actually have spoken to me about the fact that changing the terminology is a start to actually changing the culture of family law situations and the resolutions of those situations. We have other jurisdictions that have changed the terminology, but again to your question, we're seeking to try to do everything we can to provide factors and as much information for courts to consider for individuals in alternative dispute resolution situations to move beyond the focus on individual parents and to focus on the children.
What we sought to do, by way of providing factors around the best interests of the child, around the definition of family violence, around relocation and setting a framework, was to ensure that in any of these discussions the child's interest is kept.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
You asked me a question. I was just answering it.
4:25 p.m.
Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC
I know, but now there are another 10 seconds gone.
I think it is important that this bill send the right signals to parents and to children, which is why on this side of this committee we raised not only Bill C-78 but were talking about signal creating in Bill C-75 as well and trying to square the two. The signal of this bill is the children, but the signal of the other bill, Bill C-75, was lessening.... I know you say that it's not lessening the sentences, but allowing the opportunity....
The justice system takes its signal from you, Minister, and the signal you have sent is that these serious offences are going to be treated less seriously. My colleague Mr. Fraser and others on the other side changed their minds on the terrorism. The reason they gave was that it's a serious offence. Well, kidnapping a child is a serious offence. You were quoted in the National Post, I believe—
4:25 p.m.
An hon. member
Mr. Boissonnault was.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, this is not relevant to the bill that the minister is here to discuss today.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
On a point of order, it's not relevant. The discussion that's happening is not relevant.